It's an exciting time in the treatment of patients with glaucoma. For example, in the last 15 years there have been dramatic swings in recommendations about who should be treated for glaucoma.
See also pp 203 and 205.
Major improvements in therapy have developed, and diagnostic techniques that were considered definitive have been shown to be fallible. Two articles in this Archives by Airaksinen and Drance1 and Airaksinen et al2 characterize the intensive search to improve the diagnosis of glaucoma. I will summarize why such efforts are important to every ophthalmologist in the practical treatment of the patient with glaucoma.
Many reading this editorial remember when all patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) were diagnosed as having glaucoma and treatment was started. Because pilocarpine hydrochloride and, to a lesser degree, epinephrine borate were often associated with ocular side effects, the unenviable choice between oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and
Quigley HA. Better Methods in Glaucoma Diagnosis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(2):186–189. doi:10.1001/archopht.1985.01050020038013
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: